Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
It can be a left or right thing according to the classical definitions.

What classical definitions are you talking about? The term was coined in the 20th century. It was right leaning from its conception.

a reply to: daskakik

The definitions given by the OP from well established dictionaries. Merriam, Oxford, Cambridge, they all define it as a form of centralized autocratic government with a dictatorial leader which is highly oppressive and does not tolerate political dissent or criticism. Far left systems like communism are always highly centralized with a heavy handed dictator at the helm, a simple glance at communist nations around the world makes that very apparent.

Some of the definitions mention nationalism but not all of them, but lets say nationalism is a requirement for fascism, well I've already gone into detail on the last page about how most communist nations are extremely nationalistic. Now I will grant you that the term fascism probably originated more in the context of right wing political systems, but that doesn't automatically mean it cannot arise when other political systems are taken to the extreme.

EDIT: lets keep in mind Google is not an official authority on the English language as far as I know. Their definition system seems to be some what akin to Wikipedia; it's useful in many cases but not an authoritative source of information. I am using the term "classical definition" to create a distinction between the proper English definitions and the "modernized" Google definition, because I don't view the Google definition as being legitimate.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Actually Mussolini said that fascism arises from the decay of liberalism and democracy.

But just because the source of communism or fascism arises from a system or a nation doesn't make it either.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm not going by google I'm going by the "The Doctrine of Fascism". The horses mouth, if you will.

All the other sources came after so what "classical definitions" are you talking about?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm not going by google I'm going by the "The Doctrine of Fascism". The horses mouth, if you will.

The original meaning of a word often changes as the definition matures and becomes more cemented in our language. I also note that you are using the term liberal in the original way it was intended. I would in many regards consider myself a classical liberal but it's clear to me the term liberal means something very different now than what it used to, which is why I refer to myself as a libertarian.

There was a word that I always liked; the classical economists used it: liberal. The word liberal really meant, in the classical sense, the liberalization of the individuals from the tyranny of the State. That word was expropriated by our opponents and it has now come to mean liberality with other people’s money. The word was taken over. And so I, more than anybody else, was responsible for introducing and publicizing and perhaps making world-wide the word libertarian. I am sorry I ever did it. Why? Because the word libertarian has now been just as much expropriated as the word liberal.

~ Leonard E. Reed

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I also note that you are using the term liberal in the original way it was intended.

I don't think I have used the word liberal. I am well aware of the use of libertarian to denote classical liberals. Not sure how it applies here.

I would in many regards consider myself a classical liberal but it's clear to me the term liberal means something very different now than what it used to, which is why I refer to myself as a libertarian.

In the case of fascism, the dictionary definitions are not the classical definitions. I would be willing to say that they reflect the use of the term in US/Allied propaganda which used the term as a catchall.

I'm just looking into The Doctrine of Fascism of because I've never actually read it, and already the first three quotations from Wikipedia are very interesting:

Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century.

For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be a century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State. —Benito Mussolini, "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” Jane Soames authorized translation, Hogarth Press, London, 1933, p. 20.[2]

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. (p. 13) 1935 version

The Doctrine of Fascism - Wikipedia

This is easier to discuss given I've just covered the meaning of classical Liberalism. What I find very interesting here is that Mussolini some how equates right wing ideologies with collectivism but utterly fails to see the collectivism which is inherent in socialism and leftist ideologies. Socialist policies nearly always trade individual liberty for the safety of the community. Communism, which is an extreme form of socialism, is the ultimate form of collectivism from my perspective. Everything is controlled and managed by the state, all the buildings look the same, there's no variation or human spirit in those types of systems.

If we're going to talk about left and right ideologies we need to be very clear about what we mean by left and right. Even Mussolini himself seems to be saying socialism is a leftist thing, and I think we can all agree on that. Therefore, capitalism must be a right wing thing, which I believe we can also agree on. Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of leftism, yet I know of no other economic system which emphasizes individualism more than capitalism. Competition allows variation to exist and allows us to truly express ourself and take control of our own path, rather than have our path chosen for us.

Governments which utilize extreme socialist policies will not only control all aspects of the economy, they will control all aspects of peoples lives and may even choose their career for them based on the needs of the community and the aptitudes of the person, regardless of what the person wants, because that's what's best for society. The government may even decide what you can and cannot eat to keep people healthy, hell we already see that happening now. In fact there's a thread right now about sugar taxes aimed at reducing obesity, and of course they are always implemented by liberal politicians (in the modern sense of the word, meaning left leaning basically).

a reply to: daskakik

I don't think I have used the word liberal.

May be thinking of another poster, seems I'm debating several people at once here.

In the case of fascism, the dictionary definitions are not the classical definitions.

I agree dictionary definitions are not the "classical" definitions, I explained the distinction I was trying to make in my edit above.

I would be willing to say that they reflect the use of the term in US/Allied propaganda which used the term as a catchall.

Just because you don't agree with something does not automatically make it propaganda.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Collectivism to Mussolini does not mean the same what you think it does with communism. With Mussolini and Hitler, people ARE the State themselves. Individualism does not exist, only the state. Liberalism is all about individuals.

a reply to: infolurker

Dude. Your dailycaller link is dead wrong the Nazis were a right wing party. Stop trying to redefine history JUST because their name includes the word "Socialist" in there. You don't call the Democratic Republic of the Congo a Republic or a Democracy do you?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: infolurker

The Nazis have always been considered 'far right.' It's only the last year or so when an American movement has started to push them across to the 'left.' I've been watching it happen with interest.

I see it as elements on the right seeking to shrug off all negative associations. No more neo-Nazis, right? They'd be reinvented as 'far left.' Taken to its extremes, the ideal would be to have every negative, unwanted political group tied to the Left and none at all left for the Right. It's a process that's seen many on the right reject any allegations of racism on their side whilst consistently rebranding it as a Leftist habit. Neat as f*** and clever too!

I've been watching this develop too. VERY insidious. Luckily as a student of history I know better and will point out the wrongness.

a reply to: infolurker

The ONLY fascism I have seen in my lifetime has come from the left.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: infolurker

The ONLY fascism I have seen in my lifetime has come from the left.

If you believe this is true, then you should consider yourself lucky to have never experienced or witnessed real fascism.

a reply to: infolurker

Are conservatives the political right?

No. Conservative are center. One can be a conservative Democrat or a conservative Republican. Conservative don't lean to extremes, EVER! They're adverse to change, and extremes call for extreme change!

con·serv·a·tive
[kənˈsərvədiv]
ADJECTIVE
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist · traditional · conventional · orthodox ·
NOUN
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Collectivism to Mussolini does not mean the same what you think it does with communism.

Let me guess, now we're going to get into the classical definition of "collectivism". There isn't much guess work when it comes to a word like collectivism, the meaning is embedded quite clearly; it's about socialism, the collective, it's about an emphasis on the community over the individual, which is why Mussolini pits collectivism against individualism.

However it seems completely misleading of Mussolini to simultaneously claim that socialism is a friend of individualism and classical liberalism. To claim socialism is opposed to collectivism is like saying bread is opposed to butter, it makes no sense what so over.

a reply to: DrStevenBrule

Fundamentalist Christians like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are truly innocent, right? Right?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Huh? I never said that socialism is oppose to collectivism.
Anyway Mussolini HIMSELF said that people are the State. There are no individuals.

a reply to: windword

Conservative don't lean to extremes, EVER! They're adverse to change, and extremes call for extreme change!

But wanting to retain ones culture rather than allow radical changes to occur implicitly places one on the right side of the spectrum as far as mainstream pundits are concerned because such people will be against illegal immigration and in favor of strong border protection.

>>> I know that antifa protestors are fascists. There's a video song about punching Nazis that is quite clever.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Huh? I never said that socialism is oppose to collectivism.

I never said you did, but Mussolini seems to be saying exactly that based on the quotations I gave a moment ago.

Anyway Mussolini HIMSELF said that people are the State. There are no individuals.

I don't see what this has to do with an anything. Mussolini is discussing individualism and collectivism in very general terms.